Ewen Macdonald found not guilty

**Berries** · 2nd August 2012, 23:07

Originally Posted by Madness

It's ball pein.

I've been getting that occasionally. Should I see a doctor?

**PrincessBandit** · 3rd August 2012, 06:55

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. Again, I personally reckon he did it, but at the end of the day how many trials go ahead with juries not in full possession of other incriminating information? How many guilty crims have walked away free because the of the picture painted of them by their lawyer and the suppression of telling character traits which probably would colour jury's judgement?
I feel sorry for his parents (and whanau) that they now have to live with the knowledge of what their son has done, assuming they were oblivious to his sadistic nature.

**Maha** · 3rd August 2012, 07:39

Originally Posted by PrincessBandit

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. Again, I personally reckon he did it, but at the end of the day how many trials go ahead with juries not in full possession of other incriminating information? How many guilty crims have walked away free because the of the picture painted of them by their lawyer and the suppression of telling character traits which probably would colour jury's judgement?
I feel sorry for his parents (and whanau) that they now have to live with the knowledge of what their son has done, assuming they were oblivious to his sadistic nature.

Which in hindsight, could offer a truer outcome at any trial but not necessarily sway the jury.

I was on a jury once where, there was evidence of the accused being heavily involved with drugs...but we could only find him not guilty.
He had scales/a briefcase full of cash/small brown envelopes/small snap lock bags and was arrested with drugs on him.
Our job was to find him guilty/not guilty of supply.
The defence had the better case...even though I knew in my heart of hearts, that this guy ''probably'' was a dealer/supplier.
The judge instructed us that ''even if it is found that the accused shared his drugs with someone else (at the party) that is deemed supply.''

**MSTRS:Me** · 3rd August 2012, 08:50

Originally Posted by Maha

I was on a jury once where, there was evidence of the accused being heavily involved with drugs...but we could only find him not guilty....

Churr bro, I never did know who to thank...

I think most of us would be happy if that piece of dirt got the maximum on each charge, and had to serve consecutively.

**Maha** · 3rd August 2012, 10:34

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Churr bro, I never did know who to thank...

I think most of us would be happy if that piece of dirt got the maximum on each charge, and had to serve consecutively.

This character was from parts just north of you and ...was (at the time) involved with sidecar racing.
The money was explained away as...''cash for a replacement motor for the bike that he was on his way to buy in Auckland''...

**MSTRS:Me** · 3rd August 2012, 12:07

Originally Posted by Maha

This character was from parts just north of you and ...was (at the time) involved with sidecar racing.
The money was explained away as...''cash for a replacement motor for the bike that he was on his way to buy in Auckland''...

Were you wagging the day they did comprehension?

Ewan McDonald has, what? 6? separate charges with sentencing pending. Give the bastard the maximum jailtime on each, run them one after the other. Even with time served and 'good behaviour' he'd still be where he belonged for a long time.

**Swoop** · 3rd August 2012, 12:22

Originally Posted by Madness

It's ball pein.

Correct.
Where are the BDOTGNZP when you need them?

**Edbear** · 3rd August 2012, 13:20

Originally Posted by Swoop

Correct.
Where are the BDOTGNZP when you need them?

Probably being BDOTGNZA...

**Madness** · 3rd August 2012, 13:27

Years ago I worked at the District Court at Wellington and used to often have a few social drinks on a Friday before catching the train home to the Huttness. One night I was on the platform waiting for the doors to open allowing passengers to board. There was a derelict scumbag there making lewd comments & in appropriate advances to young women, the railways boys gave him a serve up & I thought nothing more about it. The following Monday I was sitting in a sentencing court & one of the crims on the list was awaiting sentence for sexual offences against underage girls. His lawyer addressed the court and spoke of his client being remorseful & a model citizen whilst on bail. He got what I remember being a very light sentence in relation to the charges & on recognizing the man as the same I had observed on the train station only days before I felt rather sick. Justice shmustice.

**Deano** · 3rd August 2012, 16:47

Originally Posted by Madness

Years ago I worked at the District Court at Wellington and used to often have a few social drinks on a Friday before catching the train home to the Huttness. One night I was on the platform waiting for the doors to open allowing passengers to board. There was a derelict scumbag there making lewd comments & in appropriate advances to young women, the railways boys gave him a serve up & I thought nothing more about it. The following Monday I was sitting in a sentencing court & one of the crims on the list was awaiting sentence for sexual offences against underage girls. His lawyer addressed the court and spoke of his client being remorseful & a model citizen whilst on bail. He got what I remember being a very light sentence in relation to the charges & on recognizing the man as the same I had observed on the train station only days before I felt rather sick. Justice shmustice.

Yep, its a shame you couldn't have stood up and sought leave to address the court or something. Ask the lawyer on what basis does he make his claims about his client being a remorseful and model citizen, before putting hi in his place by stating what you observed. I really do despise some defence liars, I mean lawyers.

**Madness** · 3rd August 2012, 18:28

Originally Posted by Deano

Yep, its a shame you couldn't have stood up and sought leave to address the court or something. Ask the lawyer on what basis does he make his claims about his client being a remorseful and model citizen, before putting hi in his place by stating what you observed. I really do despise some defence liars, I mean lawyers.

I was very young relative to my position & would like to think I'd be better equipped to handle the situation differently these days. It's a bloody interesting place to work for a 16-year old. I remember dealing with some of the Wellington trannies and being amused when this tall skanky ho replied something like "Bruce" when I asked their name

Lots of stories for sure.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 3rd August 2012, 20:35

Originally Posted by PrincessBandit

Well you can see why that info wouldn't have been made known to the jury - chances are the emotional reaction to those crimes would have rendered him guilty based on his ability to commit such dreadful actions rather than the cold hard facts of the case being tried. .

I fully understand the reasoning behind that logic, but I have a problem with this...If a woman was pressing charges of rape, the defence laywer could quite easily drag her reputation through the mud.

" So Ms 'A'...is it true on three seperate occasions the week before the alleged offence, you went to your local tavern, got drunk, and took three different men home, and had consensual sex with them?"

This is making her out as a slut to the jury, and is quite ok in such cases.

What's the difference?

**rustic101** · 3rd August 2012, 20:52

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130369506

What's the difference?[/QUOTE]

No difference that already happens, its their job to discredit the Defence Witness and the same applies for the Prosecution to erode the Accused. However indirect actions or activity can be discounted or suppressed

**Crasherfromwayback** · 3rd August 2012, 21:01

Originally Posted by rustic101

No difference that already happens, its their job to discredit the Defence Witness and the same applies for the Prosecution to erode the Accused. However indirect actions or activity can be discounted or suppressed

I don't see the difference. Making her out as a slut taints the jury's view, telling the jury he's a calf murdering cunt does likewise. One's allowed, one's not. What's the difference?